MDub Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 On the legal assistance sticky in the Collections forum, a lawyer at http://www.edcombs.com/CM/Opinions/5art.new.pdf says: The Fourth Circuit has held that "verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt." Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999); Stonehart v. Rosenthal, 01 Civ. 651, 2001 WL 910771 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2001).So then all this talk about payment history and needing signed agreements is wrong or what? Because I have demanded payment history, documents where I agreed to this debt and proof that they own the debt. According to this, they don't have to supply that information.But then again, in one of the FTC letters, it says that verification of the debt must be obtained from the creditor. "Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose."What do you all think this means?MDub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willingtocope Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 Use the "search" menu item at the top of the page searching for Chaudhry and you'll see a bunch of posts about this subject. Basically, this case is not exactly about debt validation and secondly, its just another example of not all judges read the law the same way.And...just for fun...remember we have the best legal system money can buy...so he with the most bucks to spend usually wins.My advice is follow the drill. Most CAs rely on people being ignorant of their rights and intimidated by ANY communication from a lawyer. Fight back...make them prove they've got the right person, the right amount, the right collect it, and the right to do it in your state.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentWA Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 Words are very important in the court room:"verification of a debt involves nothing more than ......What you are seeking is Validation, not Verification. Two different beasts.There is also some good threads that tear this decision apart with case law citations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codename_fortyseven Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 I think you are referring to validation. CA's don't have to validate debts, but then again they can't collect on a debt until they do. Collecting on a debt means doing just about anything to affect you or your credit report from sending letters, calling, filing suit, or even validating the debt with the CB's and not you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts